TB2-00979

TB2-00979

The claimants' evidence was not credible on the balance of probabilities due to material inconsistencies, lack of corroboration and unexplained omissions and delay; the panel found state protection reasonably available (including an internal flight alternative in Mexico City) and the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Citation
TB2-00979
Parties
Principal Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Spouse: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX; Minor Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Reasons and Decision (final Adjudication)
Outcome
Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Protection Under S.97 IRPA, Credibility Assessment, State Protection, Internal Flight Alternative, Delay in Claiming, Organized Crime and Extortion
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Human Rights Convention Refugee Protection Under S.97 IRPA Credibility Assessment State Protection Internal Flight Alternative +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Principal Claimant

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

Spouse

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Minor Claimant

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Reasons and Decision (final Adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Credibility of claimant
  2. 2 Whether claimant has a well‑founded fear on a Convention ground
  3. 3 Availability and adequacy of state protection

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' evidence was not credible on the balance of probabilities due to material inconsistencies, lack of corroboration and unexplained omissions and delay; the panel found state protection reasonably available (including an internal flight alternative in Mexico City) and the claimants failed to rebut the presumption of state protection, therefore they are neither Convention refugees nor persons in need of protection under s.97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claims rejected; claimants are not Convention refugees under s.96 and not persons in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA